Thank you, once again, for shining the bright light of clarity and reason on this confusing and obfuscating theory. The search for the organs of gender continues! Is it in our brains? or in our pants? Thanks for your continuing attempt to educate people on this slippery topic. They are trying to have it both ways and can't see the contradictions because the belief system blinds them. "be kind"...
This is so confused and confusing and contradicts itself half the time. I don't know how people like this survive, considering the turmoil their brains are producing. Cannot imagine trying to live with a mind like that!
A few thoughts off the cuff. 1] Can't generalize about "New Guinea." Huge complex very ancient cultural world there. Hundreds of very different cultures there, separate histories, unrelated languages. "Women are the providers" means not much. Women do most of the work in *most* societies, but often without much overt power. "Provider" in western English has a connotation of power, respect, leadership that isn't present in a situation where women do all the grunt work and men order them. Has she studied the literature of New Guinean ethnography? It's pretty extensive. Generalizing sounds a little ethnocentrist. 2] "Sexual identity" still isn't stably defined or identified. Where is the evidence that it develops in utero? There isn't any as far as I know. 3] What is 'identity' at all? Only humans, from what I've seen, are claimed to have this thing, to develop this. That's because 'identity' is a fiction, a story, and only humans tell stories. Animals, even apes like chimps etc., don't have a sexual identity. They have a sex. Most engage in cross-sex sexual behavior. But If individual animals engage in same-sex affiliative or sexual relationships, that doesn't create a separate sexual or gender identity either. It just shows they're individuals with specific predilections and/or that same-sex relationships are common in that species. 3] as noted, languages are social constructs. the way they make sense of the world is constructed. the words are constructs, creations. the fact that a word exists in English--"love," "nature," "gender," "god"--may indicate but definitely does not require that word has any stable referent. It's just a word--not even an idea, but a word--that at times often has had various ideas projected onto it, but often has slippery reference. words =/= reality. 5] One last point: "but it's in the scientific literature" doesn't mean what some people think. Very bad, even useless papers are printed all the time and constitute a measurable percentage of what's published. Vetting isn't what people think either. Most scientists themselves don't know statistics adequately to design or vet a study. Even top journals like Nature and Science publish worthless papers, and I've seen this particularly with topics that are politically fraught, or when the writer got a grant [free money] to "research" something with implicit agenda attached. Often a researcher has built a career on papers stating X=Y, has been rewarded for that, and so easily gets grant money to publish more papers stating X=Y, while a person with a shorter resume can't get her paper stating X=/=Y published. That's part of how science gets made [see Thomas Kuhn].
Well, that was confusing. Or should I say confused?
Thank you, once again, for shining the bright light of clarity and reason on this confusing and obfuscating theory. The search for the organs of gender continues! Is it in our brains? or in our pants? Thanks for your continuing attempt to educate people on this slippery topic. They are trying to have it both ways and can't see the contradictions because the belief system blinds them. "be kind"...
You and LibsofTikTok are crushing it lately.
Thank you!
😊👍💖
This is so confused and confusing and contradicts itself half the time. I don't know how people like this survive, considering the turmoil their brains are producing. Cannot imagine trying to live with a mind like that!
A few thoughts off the cuff. 1] Can't generalize about "New Guinea." Huge complex very ancient cultural world there. Hundreds of very different cultures there, separate histories, unrelated languages. "Women are the providers" means not much. Women do most of the work in *most* societies, but often without much overt power. "Provider" in western English has a connotation of power, respect, leadership that isn't present in a situation where women do all the grunt work and men order them. Has she studied the literature of New Guinean ethnography? It's pretty extensive. Generalizing sounds a little ethnocentrist. 2] "Sexual identity" still isn't stably defined or identified. Where is the evidence that it develops in utero? There isn't any as far as I know. 3] What is 'identity' at all? Only humans, from what I've seen, are claimed to have this thing, to develop this. That's because 'identity' is a fiction, a story, and only humans tell stories. Animals, even apes like chimps etc., don't have a sexual identity. They have a sex. Most engage in cross-sex sexual behavior. But If individual animals engage in same-sex affiliative or sexual relationships, that doesn't create a separate sexual or gender identity either. It just shows they're individuals with specific predilections and/or that same-sex relationships are common in that species. 3] as noted, languages are social constructs. the way they make sense of the world is constructed. the words are constructs, creations. the fact that a word exists in English--"love," "nature," "gender," "god"--may indicate but definitely does not require that word has any stable referent. It's just a word--not even an idea, but a word--that at times often has had various ideas projected onto it, but often has slippery reference. words =/= reality. 5] One last point: "but it's in the scientific literature" doesn't mean what some people think. Very bad, even useless papers are printed all the time and constitute a measurable percentage of what's published. Vetting isn't what people think either. Most scientists themselves don't know statistics adequately to design or vet a study. Even top journals like Nature and Science publish worthless papers, and I've seen this particularly with topics that are politically fraught, or when the writer got a grant [free money] to "research" something with implicit agenda attached. Often a researcher has built a career on papers stating X=Y, has been rewarded for that, and so easily gets grant money to publish more papers stating X=Y, while a person with a shorter resume can't get her paper stating X=/=Y published. That's part of how science gets made [see Thomas Kuhn].